Poetic Justice: Those Cheering for the Assassination of Trump Cast Themselves as Shakespearean Villains

Apparently, those directing “Shakespeare” in the Dark felt that embarrassing the President of the United States by making a travesty of one of The Bard’s epic tragedies more or less added Shakespeare’s blessing to their political views. Taken at face value, the production is only cats dancing on a piano, but, on another level, the piano turns out to be electrified and the cats aren’t dancing, they’re frying. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar was a conservative drama for its day, and today’s Marxists have hung themselves with their own triumphant ignorance.

First of all, any production that leads an audience to cheer for the assassination of Caesar via President Trump casts the audience as Shakespearean villains of epic proportions. The directors who have obscured Shakespeare’s vision of history cast themselves as the greedy, weak, and deceitful Cassius, while the deceived audience shows themselves to be the brutishly, foolish, and incompetent Brutus, the conspirator who is deceived by Cassius.

Along these lines, the title is, of course, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Caesar is the tragic hero. Yes, that means Caesar-Trump is the good guy. The villains of the play, the assassination conspiracy comprised of Judas-goats, try Caesar in absentia (Brutus Act II, scene 1) and find Caesar guilty of their own failings. They find him guilty of being greedy, corrupt, and ambitious. Furthermore, they are completely wrong about Shakespeare’s Caesar. Caesar’s flaw was not ambition. His tragic flaw is pride. Just so, the left has tried President Trump without evidence and have found him guilty of its own sins. President Trump is not the one who is guilty of corruptly colluding with Russian oligarchs. President Trump isn’t the one who sought high office to sell it to the highest bidder. If Trump has a tragic flaw, it is one Americans love because it’s a flaw no other politician has ever dared to have. Trump speaks everything that’s on his mind without regard to audience, tradition, or the potential for the dishonest to twist his words.

Shakespeare did not cheer Julius Caesar’s murder. Instead, like Marc Antony, Shakespeare would have us grieve for him. Shakespeare cast Julius Caesar as the great soul, the genius of his age. His tragic flaw was indeed hubris, not just pride but a pride that exalted itself against the gods. Caesar wouldn’t listen to the omens. He wouldn’t listen to his wife’s dream. His final words before the first knife struck, “I am constant as the Northern Star,” are tragic. They were a metaphor for his life’s work, to be honest and faithful, steady and right on. Despite a corrupt Roman world, despite being surrounded by people of unsound minds who wavered with words or with personal self-interest, Shakespeare’s Caesar kept his promises and his oaths. He kept his word to his soldiers and to his country, no matter how tough the going.

Julius Caesar’s last words, “et tu Brute” (preserved by the Mighty William from the Latin histories) are the most tragic of all. According to some historians, Brutus was like a son to Caesar. Caesar sought nothing but the best for him. That Caesar, struck by twenty-thousand daggers, lived to see this final tragic treachery from one he loved so dearly was, according to Shakespeare’s history, the death blow to the colossus of the age. Trump’s greatness …ah, I mean Caesar’s, was so complete, that the villains of the play confess that they peep about beneath his feet only to find dishonorable graves (Cassius: Act I; scene 2). Indeed the rest of the play shows that Shakespeare felt that full vengeance on the treacherous conspiracy of murders was completely justified.

Do those who cheered the fall of Caesar in New York’s Central Park this week sleep well? Shakespeare’s villains didn’t. Caesar’s ghost haunted them to their graves.

The wrath of Marc Antony on the villains of the play is final and complete. Acts III-V become a classic Hollywood vengeance flick. It’s quite ugly, but not as ugly as Caesar’s murderers, who, like the cheering audience to the “Shakespeare” in the Dark, having dabbed their hands in Caesar’s blood, run through the streets cheering and yelling “Liberty! Freedom! (Act III, scene i).”

Cassius is a bit materialistic, so he yells, “Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement!” In modernized versions, Cassius should be running around yelling “Liberty, freedom, and free healthcare and cell phones!”

In “Shakespeare” in the Dark’s modern version, the Shakespearean villains are in the audience as well as on stage. While on stage they dip their hands in Caesar’s blood, in the audience they dip their hearts in hate.

Great Caesar’s ghost isn’t part of the play simply for the fun of it, (though it is great theater). No, Caesar’s ghost represents the idea of Caesar. Brutus wanted, more than anything, to defeat the idea of Caesar, the idea of a monarch who would reform Rome. Caesar’s ghost embodied the idea of a divinely appointed monarch, an idea whose time had come.

Yes, it’s shocking. William Shakespeare believed in monarchy, not democracy. Still, it’s hard to blame Shakespeare. The world had not seen a democratic republic for a thousand years, and the last one fell much as Shakespeare describes. It fell through avarice and partisanship and laws that didn’t apply to the strong.

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is renowned for its thematic development of the skill of oratory, the power of propaganda, and the gullibility of the mob. Much of this is catechism to today’s leftists. However, Marc Antony’s speech is a correction demagogues always fear. Mark Antony was the example of the simple soldier whose words triumph because he simply unloads the burden of the truth that weighs upon his heart. Marc Antony breaks all the rules and all the promises he’s made the conspiracy, but the truth triumphs, and lean and hungry, furious Justice is set loose upon the capital of the world.

Despite how our founders have proven Shakespeare’s world view wrong, the theme that you can’t defeat an idea through treacherous, lawless violence is as true today as it ever has been. Liberal Marxists would do well to take the tragedy seriously. Perhaps they might even consider reading the play.

Comey’s Incomplete Testimony and his Core Act of Perjury

Comey’s core act of perjury during the Comey Hearings may well be intertwined with his inaccurate, incomplete testimony about his leaks that, in turn, hid false testimony about why he leaked and lied about President Trump’s demand for his loyalty.

President Trump’s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz pointed out this potential for Comey’s foundational act of perjury regarding the loyalty memo:

“Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory.”

Yes, there are two leaks and Comey only testified about one of the leaks. On May 11, two days after Comey was fired, the first leak occurred. The New York Times reported that two Comey “associates” leaked information about a one-on-one dinner seven days after the inauguration. Then on May 15 Comey decides to leak the information in the memo in a second way, through Daniel Richman. This leaked memo appears in The Times on May 16.

This is the incomplete element of Comey’s testimony that may hide his perjury. Susan Collins did not follow up her questioning properly. She could have and should have also asked, “Did you speak with anyone besides the Justice Department about your discussions with the president?”

The horse sense of the issue is that if Comey leaked the same lies before the tweet, his claim that he only began to lie only after Trump’s tweet is a false testimony. The false testimony, then, forms the basis for Comey’s perjury about why he leaked his memos.

There was also some confusion in Comey’s testimony before Senator Susan Collins. Susan Collins of Oregon had asked about a memo, singular, but then she asks a question about all the memos. Comey remains focused only on the loyalty memo about the Trump dinner on January 27.

Susan Collins – Maine: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice? (From the context: A.G. Sessions and Deputy A.G. Rosenstein.)

James Comey: Yes. I asked President tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there is not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation, might be a tape, my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square and so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend of mine to do that.

Susan Collins – Maine: Was that Mr. Wittous (Benjamin Wittes, a reporter for the New York Times)?

James Comey: No.

Susan Collins – Maine: Who was that?

James Comey: A good friend of mine, professor at Columbia Law School.

Despite the confusion, how Comey claimed to have leaked still involves critical omissions. He claimed to have leaked the loyalty memo only by way of a single friend (Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman), but there are two leaks of the conversation included in this memo. Even though the leak of the information in this memo was accomplished in two different ways, both leaks are material to a full answer to Senator Collins’ question. Is Comey’s partial answer a simple oversight, or is he dodging the heart of her question? The answer hinges on a complete testimony by Comey concerning all of his leaks.

Both leaks involved people outside of the Justice Department, so both elements of the leak are germane to the answer Senator Collins sought: was there anyone who knew about the contents of this memo who was not authorized to know? If these conversations with the President were so serious that they constituted a law enforcement matter, how did this information get to the New York Times before it reached the Justice Department? Certainly, despite her shock at Comey’s admission, Senator Collins should have followed up her questions.

Nevertheless, it makes little difference as to whether Comey discussed the contents of his memo or emailed a copy of his memo; in both instances the contents of conversations Comey claims were critical law enforcement matters were leaked. Both go to his motivation for leaking.

Is Comey’s incomplete testimony is perjury? Did he purposely omitted a key portion of the answer to Collins’ question to obscure his motives for leaking? His motives for leaking on the 15th make little sense in light of his earlier leaks. Did Comey purposely misrepresent, by conscious omission,  how he leaked the loyalty memo, when he first leaked it, and why he leaked it?

Comey claimed that Trump’s response to his first leak on May 11th, this May 12th tweet, motivated him to leak the loyalty memo:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press,”

Because of Comey’s inaccuracies and omissions, other narratives are much equally plausible.

Perhaps, terrified that he was trapped by Trump’s “tape,” Comey raced to his lawyer friend in Columbia, a friend to whom he’d embellished off the record criticisms of the President before. Any lawyer would suggest that a “contemporaneous memo” would establish that even if the “tape” was different than Comey’s recollection, Comey hadn’t lied, he’d only misunderstood what Trump was saying.

Perhaps there never was a contemporaneous memo about any of President Trump’s conversations until after May 15. This would explain why Comey can’t produce originals of those memos as of this date.

It is also possible that Comey’s descriptions of what constitutes a “memo” is a bit subjective. Are the Comey memos simply notes for his ten million dollar book? Perhaps financial gain, not malignant bitterness is Comey’s motive for leaking these memos and for insisting on a public testimony before the Senate. No one can know without having this disgraced FBI official back under oath before a congressional committee.

Comey’s may have committed a core act of perjury that then poisoned his entire testimony. His lies about his motivation fed his pathetic excuses as to why he didn’t report his “disturbing and confusing” conversations with the president and why he has no memos to show for his conversations with Loretta Lynch. Whether Comey ever, in his entire career, made contemporaneous memos on “confusing and disturbing” conversations is now an open question.

The Importance of the Filibuster and Other Jokes

There’s no way out of this filibuster said the Joker to the Thief. I, for one, loved the way McConnell told his obscene jokes about the Senate filibuster. Did you see him say: “There is an overwhelming majority, on a bipartisan basis, not interested in changing the way the Senate operates on the legislative calendar”? And he said it with a straight face! Of course there is a broad bipartisan majority; the broadest part being comprised of 48 fat Democratic obstructionist senators who despise liberty more than conservatives hate Marxism.

Then, when the Thief, Chuckie Schumer, responded so succinctly, “I think the idea of using the nuclear option for legislative stuff is pretty much dead,” we could hear his silent, rasping, chuckle: Rats feet on splintered glass in the back allies of K-Street.

Oh, but that joker McConnell. Do you know what he said next? He said getting rid of the 60 vote push-button filibuster would “fundamentally change the way the Senate has worked for a very long time.” Yea, he actually said the Senate worked. Mitch McConnell live! You can’t beat that with a stick.

…No, no, you can’t. That hasn’t been done since Democratic Senator Preston Brooks beat Republican Abolitionist Charles Sumner in 1856. That happened way before the push-button filibuster was even born,  proving that the antiquity of a Senate tradition is not evidence of its beneficial character. Besides, McConnell’s self-effacing humor is so endearing. Did you know McConnell himself is older than the push-button filibuster? Did you hear him, “the way the Senate has worked for a for a VERY LONG time…” That McConnell’s a rip.

Anyhow, the current tradition of the gentleman’s filibuster has only been around since the U.S. Senate revised Rule 22 in 1975. From that time forward, no senator needed to speak for a filibuster to be in force. Today, one simply files a motion. Since 1975, then, a filibuster has no longer been a filibuster, a simple abuse of the constitutional liberty of free speech; instead, it has become simply an abuse of the constitution. Rule 22’s revision made it slightly easier to attain cloture and move legislation, but Rule 22 made it much, much easier to enact a filibuster. It is not surprising, then, that since the enactment of Rule 22, the number of filibusters has sky-rocketed.

You know what’s interesting? A comparison between the rise in the national debt and the rise in the use of the 1975 “gentleman’s” filibuster!

Yea, the Senate “works.” Oh, that is rich, and McConnell tells it so well. That kindly, silly, old, supercilious joker. I know the thieves of K-Street get it. It’ll just be a shame when McConnell retires.

Why Ryan’s American Health Care Act is not that American

Ryan’s American Health Care Act isn’t too American. From the legislative process itself, to the subsidies, regulations, and entitlements, Ryan’s plan isn’t American. The bill is no city on the hill.

The American Health Care Act bill is simply not market driven, and that’s not American either. Subsidies and more federal spending only increase health care dollars, dollars that in turn, will only further inflate the price of health insurance.  The bill is doomed to a fiery, centralized-government, un-American failure. That’s not making America great again.

Worse, so far, Ryan’s legislative process matches the soulless Marxism of the Pelosi-Reid all out assault on American health care eight years ago. Recently Pelosi, with no sense of the ironic whatsoever, boldly declared that “The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.” Despite her shameless hypocrisy, the irony highlights Ryan’s methodology. Rand Paul was outraged by the leader’s secrecy and Ryan managed to get the American Health Care Act through two committees without a single amendment being offered. Furthermore, Ryan and the GOP managed to get the AHCA through committee before the CBO numbers came out. As with the Obamacare assault on legitimate government, Ryan has also tried to give his fellow congressman no choice except to vote for the bill he’s rushing through the legislative process.  All of this seems somewhat un-American for a bill that so proudly proclaims its patriotism.

While not quite as Orwellian as Obamacare’s official name: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the GOP’s American Health Care Act has its own elements of doublespeak. Out of one side of their mouths, supporters of the Ryan plan say tax credit subsidies are only fair since the workers who receive these are not eligible for the implicit tax benefits that other workers receive from their employer based health care. From the other side of their mouths, though, supporters of the tax credits also plan to tax these very Americans for having “Cadillac” health care plans through their employers.

Based on the AHCA’s proposal to push the Cadillac Health Care Tax to 2025, I suspect that no one intends to ever implement this menace. Instead, the Cadillac tax is simply part of the current plan to reduce the staggering budget breaking costs of maintaining the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare-like regulations, and tax credit subsidies into the next decade. Indeed, the minimal savings over ten years shown by the CBO numbers only comes into play after the Cadillac tax is applied. Nevertheless, the following chart illustrates the folly of this heinous intrusion of the federal government into the work place.

Notice that, as health care costs follow an inflationary path merely equal to annual rates of all products, more and more employer based health care plans will become “Cadillac” plans.

Nevertheless, even more Orwellian than the double speak over the “fairness” of the proposed tax credits, is the claim that because employers receive a tax deduction for providing Cadillac health care plans to employees, tax credits for the self-employed does not represent a new entitlement program. Of course they do! The federal government is taking the place a big business employer for all self-employed workers. That’s as permanent a transformation of government’s role as assuring that everyone has a right to food stamps and housing.

This, of course, the transformation of the government’s role in American health care, is the fundamental reason the Ryan’s current plan will be an abysmal failure. Conservatives must reject the Marxist-like promises of health care for all and insurance that will cover those with pre-existing conditions. As Obamacare was built on lies, so too must any health care plan that does not reject a centralized government’s role in providing health care.

Yes, the left will scream and the media will camp out at every skid row in America. That’s just what it means to be a Conservative in the United States of America in the 21st century. But, if we want the best for Americans, Conservatives must trust the free market.

The Enemy Within

Since Pete Wilson and California Proposition 187, the California Democratic Party has been aggressively organizing illegal immigrants into a voting block. The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits. It was passed but never enforced. Instead, something was born of fury of fear and of desperation… something ugly, an enemy within.

There are now so many illegal immigrant voters in California that the left sought to legalize jury duty for non-citizens. This was for a very practical reason. There were so many non-citizens on the voting rolls that parts of California could not find sufficient jurists by the traditional method of calling on those registered to vote. An estimated 10 million Californians were summoned for jury duty in 2012 and only 4 million were eligible and available to serve.

Here’s a hint: Check your state’s jury roles for non-citizens who’ve already committed voter fraud.

Gov. Moonbeam signs California’s new Motor Voter Act (A.B.1461)

So powerful is this illegal voting block, that, for the last eight years the executive branch has been its ally, offering five MILLION illegal immigrants amnesty as “Dreamers.”

So influential is this voting block that California was the first and only state to request Obamacare for illegal immigrants.

So dominant is this La Raza funded, Democrat mob vote that illegal immigrants now hold legal drivers’ licenses in the state of California. Eight hundred thousand illegals are now licensed to drive in the State of California, but there is no voter fraud in California. Remember that.

In fact, so privileged has this entitled group of federal felons become that California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon loudly proclaimed that half his family are illegal immigrants. He boasted that they have committed document fraud on both the federal and state level. So ran Senator De Léon’s rant:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

But there’s no voter fraud. Remember that. We know there is no voter fraud worth investigating in California because the California Democrats now have super majorities in both houses. The enemy is within. A lawless conspiracy of treasonous citizens and non-citizens are committed to defrauding law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights, the fruits of their labor, and their liberties.

Most of all we can be certain that there is no voter fraud because the leader of the United States Senate. Mitch McConnell has told us so. He swears:

There’s no evidence that it (voter fraud) occurred in such a significant number that would have changed the presidential election, and I don’t think we ought to spend any federal money investigating that…

Yes America, the enemy is within.

 

The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

American Fascists are calling American Voters Fascists!

The radical left is now regularly accusing American citizens of succumbing to fascism for supporting Donald Trump. Nothing could be more polarizing. Nothing could be more incorrect. Hitler’s fascism was especially dangerous because of a “cult” of personality. Trump supporters are all about the issues.

Trump supporters, should not allow themselves to remain in the basket of deplorables based only on Trump’s name. It’s far more American to be thrown into the basket of fascist, nationalistic deplorables for clearly stating one’s positions on global trade, national boundaries, and an American first foreign policy.

Of course, calling one’s opponent “Hitler” is the utterly trite example of a propaganda ploy called demonizing the enemy. That’s why every organ of fascist American media and every brilliant American “academic” spews this about Trump followers with such moronic piety (no offense to morons).  Honestly, despite the records of Joseph Stalin, Mau Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot, there is no twentieth century figure more vilified in the Western world than Adolf Hitler. To the Western mind Hitler is the devil.

The majority of millennial snowflakes probably don’t participate knowingly in the fallacy of discussing political personalities instead of political principles. Part of being caught up in fashionable political personalities is the belief that all political discourse is about the personalities, racial identities or gender roles of those on the national scene.

It is, ironically, the American Marxist left, which, damning others, bears the closest resemblance to fascism. From pathetic sit-ins over losing a Senate vote, to ruining cities with their self-righteous riots, the American left circles this cult or that cult of personality like lunatic moths circle to their deaths in the halo of a candle’s false light.

The textbook rise of a leader’s cult of personality includes the use of mass media propaganda. After a summer of wildly incorrect polls and corruptly biased journalism, the left had the audacity to accuse American citizens of voting for Donald Trump because they had succumbed to “fake news.” Yet it is the very leaders of those who decry “fake news” who instigated, paid for, and released a bizarrely salacious example of preposterously fake news to embarrass the duly elected American President nationally and internationally. It’s now plain that the propaganda from the left is primarily for the left. The propaganda isn’t to fool the deplorable Americans who vote national issues. Sadly, it’s a rallying cry for radicals. All the left has left are those who can be led by the glitter of propaganda and lies.

So how does one get one’s neighbor out of the cult? Yes, it’s dangerous, but one has to try to speak patiently to the cultist and, in so doing, opens oneself to every kind of vicious attack by this or that seething mob of fake news conformists. One idea is to let a fake news cultist know that you don’t support Trump’s plan for the country because you like Trump, but you like Trump because he supports your plan for the country.

Nevertheless, it is one’s patriotic duty. Our nation and our national our liberties, when exercised boldly and wisely, increase in strength.

Genuine Free Trade and Multinational Hypocrisies

The United States of America is the best modern example of a free trade zone. The example of the power of free trade among the thirteen colonies exemplified, perfectly, the contrasts between mercantilism and economic liberty. This robust power of economic liberty would eventually be popularized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

41cTu15sl5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_Adam Smith contrasted mercantilism, the practice of economic domination of other nations through the power of trade, with the prosperity that arises when nations trade honestly with one another. Nations practicing mercantilism sought to make other nations subservient by selling merchandise but refusing, by tariffs and taxes, to purchase an equal monetary amount from the nations they sought to impoverish. More importantly, nations practicing mercantilism sought to manufacture finished goods while receiving raw resources from their debtor nations.

As long as the United States traded freely within its own expanding borders, its prosperity and manufacturing became ascendant, despite the pressures of mercantilist trading partners such as Great Britain. By the end of World War II the British Empire ceased to exist as a mercantilist power, and the United States was the premier manufacturing and economic power in the world. Since the age of NAFTA under President Bill Clinton and historic GOP majorities in congress, the manufacturing base of the United States has been gutted. Why? What went wrong? Why was “free trade” so destructive to the American economy?

First of all, it was free trade in name only. It wasn’t free trade at all. Anyone who ever called our international ‘free trade’ agreements free trade were liars.

There is no such thing as unilateral free trade. If one trading partner is protectionist or practices CdO7ZpDUsAIAWPbmercantilism while the other partner does not, this isn’t free trade. It’s a give away. It’s highway robbery. It’s high treason, but it’s NOT free trade. To the extent that free trade, or just trade, is good for all partners; idiotic trade, treasonous trade, or corrupt trade eventually damages every partner. China, for example, has run up trade surpluses with the West to such an extent that the economic power of its trading partners has been slowed or diminished. As a result, China is killing the golden goose. Who will China trade with if its Western markets are diminished? The recent slowdowns in the Asian economy are a partial witness of the corrupt trade practice the East has followed with the West.

Do America’s trading partners practice mercantilism today? While some nations such as China have sought gold reserves, today’s economic gold standard is the American dollar or American treasuries. Are American trading partners hording American treasuries and dollars? Yes, everyone from Saudi Arabia to China have the good sense to maintain trade surpluses and to invest that wealth or horde that wealth. Thinking that having material things for one’s citizens is more important to foreign governments than hording American currency is utterly naïve. Having material things for one’s subjects (as in Saudi Arabia) or citizens (as in China) is of some value, but having the world’s mightiest military held hostage by its nation’s debt is priceless.

CdO7ZsZVAAEdLxoSecondly, our free trade agreements were free trade agreements in name only. The larger lesson of desolated Detroit, a lesson that was always self-evident from Adam Smith’s work anyhow, is that only free peoples can engage in free trade. While China is not a member of NAFTA, it is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). So also are Japan and South Korea, other nations with which the United States has unthinkable trade deficits. This monstrous world-wide trading organization seeks to provide the standards by way of which trade is “regulated.” Since all regulation is anathema to the idea of free trade, such an organization is as much a farce as Marxism. Since Marxism is a logical impossibility, it can never exist in practice. Likewise, the logical impossibility of the WTO means that, in practice, whatever it is, it is not an organization that sets standards for free exchange. Only a political union can provide an atmosphere of free trade, and then, only if the political union promotes and defends the liberties of its citizens. A free citizenry is what allows the invisible hand of the free market to work.

Finally, it follows from the premise that “only free peoples can engage in free trade” that free trade can only be pursued, not achieved, among different nations. A political union among free people is the only basis for the wto-litigation-ft-august-2012adjustments that take place as part of genuine free trade. Among various nations, various degrees of economic freedom and political freedom result in unequal trading relationships. These inequalities are the responsibility of each nation to monitor and evaluate. The tokens of unfair, or unequal, “free trade” can be found in trade surpluses or deficits and in the aggregate increases or decreases in the manufacturing sectors of various national economies.

None of this takes rocket science to describe and to apply. That’s why the free market works. Workers, manufacturers, merchants and producers of every kind measure their own microeconomic trade deficits and adjust. This is what allows for efficiency in every economy. Recognizing that “free trade” philosophies have been applied so poorly implies corruption. Almost everyone recognizes that transnational corporations and large banking interests are profiting from the seemingly idiotic application of free trade philosophies. While greed means wanting more than one needs, and while no one can be a judge as to what another feels he needs, greed is certainly manifest in the corruption that has become international in scope and rotten to the core.

Liberty Comes from the Rule of Law

It’s a paradox, so it is deeply true: liberty, in every incarnation from monetary freedom to personal liberty, comes from the rule of law. For a person to prosper, he or she must live by a code; the higher the code the greater the prosperity. So it is, also, for nations. Ours has become lawless, preferring human whims to the natural law of its founders.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 3, 2012, President Obama called a budget obamaproposal of Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Obama and others fail to recognize that there can be a rule of law higher than any one person, so they cannot distinguish the differences between liberty and the doctrines of tyrants, doctrines that excuse utter despotism and abject slavery by refusing to accept laws higher than self.

Social Darwinism was the psychotic delusion of a drunk’s puppet (no disrespect to drunks). For the leader of the free world to associate free market principles with this theology of degenerate racism is proof of the dementia at the core of modern American “intellectualism.” Our academics have become a self-lauding church that parades itself in our national discourse as our national conscience. If we had a national conscience, we’d grind these institutions into powder and scatter them across the brook Kidron.

Generally, Social Darwinism was a Victorian Age rationalization for upper class elites to take from others the fruits of their labors by any means possible. Laws that allowed for economic prosperity could be discarded at will on the basis of racial dominance. Social Darwinism became the intellectual window dressing for thuggish premises like: “We’re strong; you’re not, so we can take what’s yours.” Saying that Social Darwinism is the ethical basis for a free market is comparable to saying free trade is a robber, who, holding a gun to your head, offers you the choice: “Your money or your life!”

Free markets, historically, 71FDiOr4jzLdon’t work this way. They don’t function at all under lawless conditions. Free markets in which wealth “evolves” work on King Arthur’s round table principles. Free markets produce when “Might is for Right” and not when “Might is Right.” Ironically, it is Communism and Socialism that must get rid of the rule of law in order to function (see The Road to Serfdom). In 2012 it is the socialists who are trying to get rid of the rule of law by attacking free markets as lawless.

Human virtue, though, is demonstrably not genetic. Animals excel in their relationship to the physics of earth, air, and water. Human virtue, however, is determined by mankind’s relationship to truth. A fit nation is an ethical nation, and such nations can only exist with ethical citizens.

In this context, a change does occur in free markets. The ethics of a free people are continually expressed in the realm of material prosperity.  The best banks, railroads, airlines and businesses survive and are rewarded for their service to others. But “fittest” does not mean “strongest.” Instead, the entire nation moves from shadows towards light. The greatest societies are laudable for the ethics and strength of the laws by which they govern all their members equally. In return and they are rewarded by an economic strength that flows from teamwork and specialization.

Herbert Spencer cannot take the blame for those who applied the ideas of Social Darwinism to eugenics. However, the implicit link to racism from the days of British Imperialism to the eugenics movement in the United States, gives the ideology of Social Darwinism a hellish connotation.

Obama can get away with labeling every free market proponent a racist because this nation will not hold itself responsible to any law higher than it’s personal convenience.

Cone-headed academicians can get away with cursing the principles of a great nation endowed with liberty from beneath white masks of “intellectual purity” because the septic system of American thought has been so thoroughly corrupt for so long.

We think nothing of this utter rot pouring out from beneath the bathroom door. We’ve lived in this filth so long that we hardly notice it anymore. But we are all utterly contaminated. We reek of sickness and stink of decay. The truth of America has no real friends, and the jackals, smelling our decay, are circling.

Liberty comes fking-arthur-and-the-knights-of-the-round-table-round-table-1-ideas-round-table-1rom the rule of law. This is true for individuals, economies, societies and nations. The darkness of ignorance in every person and in every nation comes from ignoring each person and each law’s relationship to the truth. We are not a nation founded on natural law because we are nature worshippers. We were a nation dedicated to natural law because we read in nature the face of it’s Designer and His higher purposes for every person. We read in nature His eternal call to liberty. Now it seems we prefer tyranny and slavery. Liberty is not a statue. It is the purpose of the Creator for every person. Let’s be part of the change. Let’s stand up and stay valiant for the truth.

Transgenic Cows and the Odds Against the Darwin Theory

The mathematics against the origin of life arising by the interaction of normally occurring natural forces are easily understood, but the probabilities of naturally occurring mutations that result in entirely new species are not as simple to measure. However, recent news about the failure to mix human and cow DNA in transgenic cows provides a small window into the problem. The evidence shows that each species’ DNA is so awesomely complex that it is not malleable; it is not naturally mutable.

29_fransiscrickWhile one of the co-discoverers of DNA, Francis Crick, believed the odds were so stacked against life originating by the operation of natural forces that alien intervention would be at least as reasonable to assume, the complexity of  variables in DNA and epigenetics makes similar computations for the relationship between species extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, the failure of top scientific intellects to design a blend of the DNA between two species, human and bovine, show how intensely the odds are stacked against evolutionary theory.

Recently, GE Free New Zealand released a report covering 15 years of AgResearch trials using 60 cows bred to express certain transgenic proteins, including a human protein, in their milk. The report is based on information obtained from New Zealand’s form of the United States FOIA request called an Official Information Act request or OIA. After fifteen years of experimentation, from the many thousands of transgenic embryos the cows have carried, the average live birth rate has ranged from 0 – 7%.

Starting with Crick, modern genetic engineering itself represents a developing communal intelligence of over fifty years. This communal intelligence has made many genetic breakthroughs. For instance, the New Zealand genetic engineers have achieved solid success in developing species specific bovine traits that benefit the beef industry. However, when endeavoring to handle transgenic bovine-human DNA, genetic engineers have experienced nothing but failure.

Consider the significance of this for the Darwin theory. The intelligence these labs represent intervenes into the treenatural environment and accomplishes in hours what Darwin speculated might happen over the course of thousands and thousands of years. That is, these scientists introduce a new, genetically diverse bovine DNA code into the “evolutionary cycle.” They introduce something like a transitional species such as is needed in the phylogenetic trees essential to the Darwin theory’s explanation of the fossil record.

This millennial “time lapse” occurs each time a scientist generates a single embryo. These New Zealand scientists generated thousands of embryos with diverse DNA. In addition, these scientists endeavored to generate compatible strands of DNA. They were not randomly mutating genes. These scientists had a specific “evolutionary” goal in mind and extensive experience in genetic mapping. Furthermore, the genetic goal was not even an “intermediate” species or hybrid between cow and human. The goal was a slight expansion or alteration of bovine specific DNA beyond a cow’s natural species specific genetics.

The experiments were utter disasters. AgResearch’s annual reports cataloged “a sad and profoundly disturbing cowstory of illness, reproductive failure and birth deformities.” Even worse for the Darwin theory, most of the transgenic cows were not able to reproduce past the first generation. Sterility resulting from genetic transformations, no matter how profitable the new adaptation might be for the survival of the species (and none were at all profitable for adaptation), is death to evolution. Even more ruinous for Darwinism is that the transgenic cows which did produce a second generation all bore sterile offspring.

In Darwinian evolutionary terminology, thousands upon thousands of years finally produced a single alternate form of Bovine DNA, but the embryo couldn’t survive until birth. Multiply this failure by thousands of thousands of years of failures until a single embryo survives. Then that embryo is sterile. Then repeat the millennium again and again until, at last, an embryo survives that can breed… but… but… its offspring… all sterile, as sterile as the Darwin theory.

Perhaps some day, heaven forbid, mankind will be able to generate mutant species, monsters that can survive and breed. It won’t be by chance. It will only be by intelligent design.

If twisting a species’ DNA requires intelligent design. How much more intelligence must it take to originate a species. How much more intelligence must it take to engineer all of the teeming multitude of living things that swim, fly and walk the earth, surviving and interacting in ways more intricate than the human mind can fully comprehend, let alone express. Now think about the Planner Who is the only possible explanation for the Universe. That’s not church. That’s logic.